Eminent scholars at the Smithsonian Institute and experts on Mesoamerica such as Dr. Michael Coe apparently wrongly dismiss the Book of Mormon for 2 reasons:-

1. They are afraid of becoming LDS or

2. They have never read the Book of Mormon

According to William J. Hamblin http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/bom/Geography_Archaeology.htm


The important question is: why do non-Mormon scholars reject the Book of Mormon? The answer is complex, but two points should be emphasized. First, acceptance of the historicity of the Book of Mormon logically necessitates acceptance of Joseph Smith's prophetic claims. Thus, any scholar who eventually came to accept the historicity of the Book of Mormon would be logically compelled to become a Latter-day Saint. He would thereby cease to be a non-Mormon who accepts the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Secondly, and more importantly, most non-Mormons do not take the Book of Mormon seriously enough even to read it, let alone give it the careful study required to make an informed judgment. They simply dismiss it out of hand. This has been the approach taken by anti-Mormons such as Wilson, and it is the reason why Wilson's criticisms can also be dismissed out of hand.

My response to these 2 nonsense reasons would be :-

1. "First, acceptance of the historicity of the Book of Mormon logically necessitates acceptance of Joseph Smith's prophetic claims. Thus, any scholar who eventually came to accept the historicity of the Book of Mormon would be logically compelled to become a Latter-day Saint. He would thereby cease to be a non-Mormon who accepts the historicity of the Book of Mormon."

This is a crazy argument. Presumably they cannot accept the historicity of the Mayan or Aztec societies lest they have to accept their religions. Same applies to scholars of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism etc. etc. Also, even if the BoM could be shown to be historic does not prove the LDS church is true (or which of its many versions are true).

2. "Secondly, and more importantly, most non-Mormons do not take the Book of Mormon seriously enough even to read it, let alone give it the careful study required to make an informed judgment. They simply dismiss it out of hand".

Is he serious? Is he really questioning the integrity and ability of non Mormon scholars? What about us exmos and there are certainly notable scholars among us. I do not claim to be a scholar but I have read the Book of Mormon many, many times and I understand it. I have studied it in seminary and institute and taught from it and testified of it. I know it well and once considered that I "knew" it to be true. I also know what the 'Brethren' have taught about it. I also know the Lord Himself, in the D&C referred to the Lamanites as the North American Indians ( a fact overlooked by apologists). Even with such avid reading and study I can see, when presented with irrefutable evidence, that the BoM is a work of 19th century fiction. The Nephites and Lamanites are simply made up.

What think ye?

Tom

I makes perfect sense.

1. Apologists are afraid of listening to reason because it would make them NOT LDS.

2. They've never read and comprehended the scientific data behind the reasons that the BoM is a fraud.

Therefore, their reverse arguments are logical.

On some planet.

I told a couple of missionaries recently that the Book of Mormon does more to undermine the church's claims than it does to help its cause. No archaelogical evidence, the DNA issue, and the fact that the stories themselves are ridiculous. They didn't have an answer.

Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Winnie the Poo, Lehi, Lemuel, Nephi, King Benjami...

Imaginary people and animals in comic book form.

Magical thinking, visions, Prophets, celestial kingdoms, limitless sex, something for everyone to enjoy.

My personal all time favorite is "Nephites coins".

Ask President Monson to help struggling members regain faith in the leadership and hold General Conference in Zarahemla.

ROFLMAO

I think scholars dismiss the BOM and Dianetics for basically the same reasons.

+1

Point 1:

Which Mormon group? There are several splinter groups all derived from Joseph Smith. Just because your group is the biggest doesn't automatically mean that accepting the Book of Mormon would make your church true.

Likewise: Even in Joseph Smith did translate the Book of Mormon it doesn't preclude him being a fallen prophet, nor does it preclude later church leaders from straying. In fact, nearly all of the 11 witnesses of the Book of Mormon determined that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet. David Whitmer for example stated that he was as sure that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet as the Book of Mormon was true.

Additionally the Book of Mormon proves that the Mormon church is false. A few examples:
- Churches with an emphasis on worldly things such as fine twined linens & great and spacious buildings are of the devil.

- Secret combinations such as those in the temple are of the devil and are a grave threat to civilization and government

- Polygamy is an abomination.

- Leaders should be teenagers who are really big, not 80+ year old geezers.

Point 2:

I've personally read the Book of Mormon over 50 times. There were many factors in decided I did not believe in the Mormon church but the Book of Mormon was the #1 factor. There are so many problems - theological, historical, scientific throughout the book.

It's not particularly difficult for a scholar to look at the geographical, historical, etc. claims found in the Book of Mormon to compare that with archaeological evidence. One does not have to read it comprehensively to review the passages that make these claims and compare them to known science, geography & archeology.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/30/2012 01:09PM by bc.

As Heresy points out, these two "arguments" reveal the weakness of the LDS position. If the BoM is not historical, then Moroni didn't exist and the entire foundational story of Mormonism falls apart. Not to mention "Moroni's promise", which is used to convert people to Mormonism to this day.

Moreover, Billy Bob Hamblin engages in some serious circular reasoning. I tend to agree that a person would be logically compelled to become LDS if they believed the BoM to be historical. The operative word in the previous sentence, however, is "if".

Scientists don't generally start with a conclusion and then shy away from the research needed to support it. Hamblin confuses scholarship with apologetics, a professional deformation that may be forgiven him.

The claim that non-Mormons dismiss the Book of Mormon without having read it, is of course nothing but a lie. There are plenty of non-Mormons who have seriously read and investigated the BoM and found it wanting.

True, many non-Mormons dismiss the BoM out of hand but they are justified in doing so by the serious research that exposes it as badly written religious fiction. No person can evaluate every piece of information they come across. Trusting other peoples' judgement is a fair practice, provided they have the necessary credentials.

Prof. Coe and many others have the credentials and have read the BoM and found it to be ludicrous in terms of historicity. All the relevant facts currently known to men (note the encompassing nature of this statement) support this conclusion.

Bill Hamblin is one of Denial C. Peterson's cronies (remember DCP?). He was also deservedly embarrassed in the "Metcalf is Butthead" episode...

As a scholar he's a non-starter, and he's pretty much reduced to playing the role of a lawyer defending a guilty client. There are only so many tactics to fall back on when the facts overwhelmingly demonstrate it to be a 19th Century fraud.

Those of us who've followed the tactics of Mormon apologists, particularly the "militant" variety at FAIR and the Maxwell Institute (FARMS) have seen all of these over the years, and when I can be persuaded to address them somewhat seriously, I prefer to resort to barbed humor. Even that only carries me so far, and I would be dishonest if I said I wasn't prone to burn out by now.

My first introduction to apologetic tactics came over ten years ago at an Exmo Conference that featured Simon Southerton. I spent some time with him afterwards--along with our good friend "Cricket"--and Simon accurately predicted that they would vilify him as "a plant geneticist."

And lo and behold, it came to pass...

Historically the Book of Mormon only gained a foothold because many believed Native Americans were descended from one of the Lost Tribes...

Reasonable scholastic inquiry has always run up against the inertia created by the mythology of the Bible; Darwin comes readily to mind, as do geological investigations into the age and origin of the earth...

If Hamblin doesn't want it wrongly dismissed, perhaps he should devote more effort to stopping Mormons from promoting pseudo nonsense. Mormons don't do themselves any favors when they misrepresent scientists.

Statement about "The Lost Civilizations of North America" DVD
http://ohio-archaeology.blogspot.com/2010/12/commentary-on-lost-civilizations-of.html

"In our opinion, there is no compelling archaeological or genetic evidence for a migration from the Middle East to North America a few thousand years ago, nor is there any credible scientific evidence that Old World civilizations were involved in developing Native American cultures in pre-Columbian times."

"Each of us was interviewed for this film. None of us was asked directly for our opinion on what turned out to be its underlying claim; that Old World civilizations played an active role in the development of Native American cultures, especially the mound builders. Instead, we were asked general questions about Native American societies, their remarkable technological achievements, genetic histories, and we were also asked to comment on the biases of many nineteenth-century historians and archaeologists concerning the abilities of the native people of North America. We fear that the context of our general remarks as they currently appear in the film might lead viewers to conclude that our words on these subjects provide support for the film’s claims. That would be a mistake. In fact, our remarks, if presented in an unedited form, show clearly that we reject the assertions made in the finished documentary concerning a non-native source for the complex cultures of Native America."


Civilizations Lost and Found: Fabricating History - Part One: An Alternate Reality
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/civilizations_lost_and_found_fabricating_history_-_part_one_an_alternate_re/

Civilizations Lost and Found: Fabricating History - Part Two: False Messages in Stone
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/civilizations_lost_and_found_fabricating_history_-_part_two_false_messages/

Civilizations Lost and Found: Fabricating History - Part Three: Real Messages in DNA
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/civilizations_lost_and_found_fabricating_history_-_part_three_real_messages/

androidandy -- I think that is unfair. Winnie-the-Pooh is utterly charming and gently teaches some valuable life lessons. (See The Tao of Pooh and similar books.) While even as a kid I was not a fan of cartoons, Daffy Duck and Mickey Mouse are innocent amusements and have obviously stolen the hearts of many. And no one demands that grownups -- or even children -- find them "real."

BoM on the other hand, is none of those things, has none of those qualities. It would not matter quite so much that it is an invention, if only it were a good one. It is not "comic" or a decent cartoon. Any Marvel superhero series offers better lessons in good and evil, as well as infinitely better art and more cogent social commentary. Comics and cartoons are also much more amusing, which is no small attribute -- at least to me. BofM is not only a lie masquerading as a special "truth," it has no underlying artistic truth that might redeem it, as well as qualifying for a spot on The Ten Dullest Reads on Planet Earth, coming in only behind Government Documents.

It is totally unfair to compare BoM even to the Cathy comic strip, which at least gave us an identifiably real woman with the real dilemmas of our time and some laughs along the way.

1) Hamblin typically resorts to attacking the author who he labels 'anti-mormon' without offering any proof himself (because there is none). Much of Bill's writing is to discredit the author - for example in one part he moans how the author hadn't considered all of the latest BoM 'experts' views on a particular topic and this therefore completely discredits the author - yet these so-called experts argue and disagree with each other anyway and also how many world-recognised non-LDS experts' views has Hamblin also conveniently forgotten to take account of?

2) He also relies heavily on a) obscuring what can be actually attributed to JS and what is specifically classed as 'revelation' and b) the fact that on most matters the church has no official position (some defense Bill!)

For example, in trying to diminish the view that JS believed in a hemispheric BoM, Hamblin offers the weak argument: "But even though Joseph Smith may have accepted this identification, it was never put forward as revelation".

So it seems Hamblin's yardstick is to rely only on information that is specifically put forward to the church as revelation. The problems with this are:

- how much of any prophet's words are actually officially put forward as revelation anyway? And why is there so little?
- I guess we can therefore just disregard anything that Monson or the 12 say that doesn't fit this tight criteria. Is GBH's two earring view revelation? Where can I find details of the official revelation that details how the Word of Wisdom changed specifically from 'not by way of commandment' to then being a commandment? Etc....
- regardless, wouldn't it be somewhat concerning that the prophet of the restoration was wrong on his views of such fundamental things? Why would God allow him to teach such erroneous views, regardless of whether they were put forward as official revelation?
- Hamblin merely exposes how frequently the church doesn't take a position on such matters..... thus causing endless debates between opposing TBM apologists and much frustration among members who earnestly try to square these things. It's clear that the prophets don't want to risk being wrong so they stay silent.

2) His argument against the author based on how experts still haven't found proof of everything in the bible is also weak. He says:

"Out of the approximately 475 place names mentioned in the Bible only about 262 have been identified with any degree of certainty, i.e., 55 per cent."

This is meant to give leeway to BoM archeologists who are admittedly far less in number and have a shorter track record of searching..... but I would still ask Bill how many BoM place names have been identified with any degree of certainty? He conveniently doesn't mention this, but I'm pretty certain it is zero, i.e. 0%

3) His rationale for why non-LDS scholars won't accept the BoM is laughable. I would simply offer a third reason - that they've looked at the BoM, compared it to what we know about pre-columbian Mesoamerica and decided it's a pile of poo.

Is to discredit scholars who aren't "experts" on the BOM. He underhandedly dismisses those don't "have a personal testimony" of the BOM. In his view (assuming he really is that blind to his own actions, as I believe he probably is), anyone without one is unqualified to speak to the subject...

But of course the wide variety of apologetic defenses are always welcomed and deemed profound and insightful no matter how ludicrous.

Rodney Meldrum, however, has rattled their cages with his "Heartland Geography Model," and since apologists since John L.Sorenson have embraced the LGT (Central America being the only location where Native Americans had any sort of written language or built something approximating BOM descriptions), they've been forced to attack the messenger in the same way the attack us "anti's."

Because let's face it, only true believing Christian archaeologists have offered any valid evidence that might align to biblical lands.

Perhaps that is where Michael Coe is going wrong. Forget his years of studies and his recognised expertise, he just needs to gain a testimony of the BoM first (warm fuzzies I presume because there's admittedly not much logical evidence to go on) and then it will all make sense.

I liked this comment best:

"The Bible itself is a case in point. For example, modern sites for only 55 per cent of the place names mentioned in the Bible have been identified..."

Wow. So the Bible has only 55% of its sites identified.

Can he (or anyone) point to even ONE Book of Mormon site that has been conclusively identified?

So according to this argument:

Any scholar (of any kind pertinent to the Book of Mormon), who does not find it to be true...

1) Thinks it MIGHT be true but is AFRAID to commit to joining the church if he/she looks into it...or

2) He/she hasn't read the Book of Mormon.

A false dichotomy. There are other possibilities. These are broad generalizations about ALL non-mormons...that you're either reluctant to join for some reason, or you don't know enough about it.

News for Mormons...There are a GREAT many who 1) have all the courage and integrity that you have, if not more, and 2) have looked into it as extensively, if not more...and who think it isn't true.

Anointed One wrote in the original post:

>1. "First, acceptance of the historicity of the Book of Mormon logically necessitates acceptance of Joseph Smith's prophetic claims. Thus, any scholar who eventually came to accept the historicity of the Book of Mormon would be logically compelled to become a Latter-day Saint. He would thereby cease to be a non-Mormon who accepts the historicity of the Book of Mormon."

>This is a crazy argument. Presumably they cannot accept the historicity of the Mayan or Aztec societies lest they have to accept their religions. Same applies to scholars of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism etc. etc.

I think AO misses the point of Hamblin's argument (not that I want to defend Hamblin!). Anyone who accepts the historicity of the BoM is more or less bound to accept the miraculous way in which it was produced. The information about the historicity of the Mayans and other ancient societies was obtained through normal scientific channels.

One who accepted the historicity of the Nephites would not feel obligated to accept the Nephite religion, but to recognize that the man who produced the BoM was a prophet and had divine aid.

A better argument was made by other posters: any scholar (or anyone at all) who accepted the BoM as historical would have to then decide whether that was also evidence that the LDS church was divine, or some other branch of the Restoration, or whether Joseph Smith's ONLY job was to be the vehicle for producing the BoM, and NOT to found any church at all (as the revelation in the Book of Commandments said).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/30/2012 05:06PM by RPackham.

Hamblin states "Thus, any scholar who eventually came to
accept the historicity of the Book of Mormon would be
logically compelled to become a Latter-day Saint. He would
thereby cease to be a non-Mormon who accepts the historicity
of the Book of Mormon."

Please show me people who:

(A) got PhD's in mesoamerican archaeology or anthropology and

(B) then joined the Church because they found the BOM to be so
spot-on in describing ancient America.

If the BOM really is historical the absolute best prospective
Mormons should be meso-American specialists.

What Hamblin is doing is called "Poisoning the well." He's
issuing a pre-emptive attack against the entire scholarly
community--attacking their character and sincerity--without
actually dealing with the evidence they present.

This is the strategy that is used when your position is
totally lost. Hamblin, in stooping to this, shows how bad the
Mormon position really is.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/30/2012 05:08PM by baura.

Application is the 'ONLY' crucial matter in religion!:

The BoM: is quite specific regarding our need to Forgive others, Yet TSCC has qualified it down almost to Nothing/Inconsequential!

The substance of the BoM is lost in the idea that Just it's existence is paramount.

Another possibility--Mormon god is a total liar. :)

I have read the religious texts of most major religions and some obscure ones. I never felt an urge to convert to any of them.

When I read the Harry Potter series I found them to be more believable and coherent than any of the above. I tried thrashing around with a wand and shouting in pseudo Latin, but nothing happened. I have concluded that as a Muggle I cannot convert to the one true religion.

I'm reminded of Bob McCue trying to find a scholar who was willing to prove the BoM untrue. Even when he offered them money to do the research, they would decline. They compared it to finding evidence that the earth is not flat: it's trivial and pointless. Just like mormonism.

Correct; ALL the trivail indicators in the world don't add up to one conclusive or substantial one;

that's a HUGE flaw in TBM thinking!

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Dianetics, The Amityville Horror, Book of Mormon, Koran.

All these are lies, with the last two consisting largely of Biblical fan fiction and plagiarism. I'm sorry so many people believe in them, but that's human nature at its worst. A lot of humans prefer easy explanations over research. By the way, I'm not defending Biblical content; it's horrible no matter how much imitated.

One always needs to put into perspective why LDS people come up with whatever dumb support for defending the Church and its problem children/prophets or their contributions/revelation. The Church is a Big Business that employs many in Church schools, seminaries, institutes, church hqs, etc. ------- if more tithe paying members find out the church is false and man-made, everyone on the payroll is in jeapordy of losing their jobs and whatever retirement etc. benefits. I believe the church is making that clearer now than ever before to more employees but I do not have any specific examples.
I still attend church with my wife to support her (and still accomplish a calling I accepted years before my eyes were opened) because she doesn't want to know that the church is not true or hear the evidence because it is too confusing for her and she still thinks she is doing some good service in this LDS community. The Bishop indicated today some had not settled tithing (obviously because of procrastination), so I am expecting the Bishop to ask why I didn't attend tithing settlement. Actually, no one seemed to recognize I quit paying for last 2 years. I believe it is because they know I use to pay directly to church Hqs and had $0 to declare at tithing settlement. I am ready to be partially honest with them, if required, and tell them I have studied and prayed and still have problems with the church and just don't feel comfortable inside (my spirit) with paying tithing at this time (as if there is a chance I will feel like paying later) ------- hey I can't be 100% confident I will not have a revelation (which it would probably take) that would tell me to pay tithing even if the church is not totally true but God wants me to do it anyway. So whether I come "out of the closet" soon ------ time will tell.

The Book of Mormon is dismissed by scholars because

1) They fall asleep before they can get through it, and

2) zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

The main reason the Book of Mormon is dismissed by non-Mormon scholars is because are blinded by facts.

Mormons see deeper--they have more light. For example, they can have an entire archeology department at BYU with no body of artifacts to examine.

Non-Mormon scholars in powerful positions used that to deny BYU its accreditation if they didn't remove the tented digs in the parking lot.


Anagrammy

Are you saying that "the tented digs in the parking lot" were used in lieu of real artifacts to simulate research? Because that is hilarious. It's no longer shocking, compared to the rest of the LDS antics, but it's really too funny! Ha ha...

When did that happen, do you know? I gotta tell my brother about that one. Thanks.

I've often heard believers defend the BoM because of it's "complexity." Somehow that's not convincing. Another statement is that it was "translated" in only 3 months. (That's what Joe Smith said, I guess.) This is not convincing based on his character and apparent dishonesty.

I embarked on a lengthy effort to determine what I could of his character according to all available historical material. At present I have to say the evidence is not impressive.

I think one likely scenario is that Joe and others colluded in creating the book from numerous plagiarized sources and their imaginations, and over a significantly longer period. I think they initially wanted to sell the book for profit. They in fact did attempt to sell the copyright.

I don't really have to know the book's origins, though. There's enough evidence (or lack of) to show it's falsity as it stands.

New to the site - is this all confirmation bias, or are there ever real discussions?

Could it possibly be because there is no archaeological evidence,none, for the BofM and it is filled with plants and animals that did not exist in the Americas prior to 1492? Could that possibly be a factor? Nah, they just don't want to be Mormons.